From the Editors: Explaining theoretical relationships in international business research: Focusing on the arrows, NOT the boxes
Distinctive features of articles accepted by the Journal of International Business Studies are that they are multidisciplinary in scope and interdisciplinary in content and methodology, and they make a substantial theoretical contribution to international business studies. Failure to meet this last requirement is an often cited reason given by reviewers for article rejection. Sometimes reviewers mean that a manuscript does not conform to the dominant paradigm, in that it is not the next logical step in the study of a phenomenon, or they mean that there is little if any integration of several theories used to explain a phenomenon. However, perhaps the most common underlying meaning when reviewers cite “lack of a theoretical contribution” for rejection is that the nature of the relationships proposed is not well explained. While the first two meanings may be influenced by the specific discipline or methodology involved, this final one is not. In this editorial we provide a set of guidelines that authors can use to ensure that their paper meets the standard of explaining the logic of the relationships they propose.
Volume (Year): 42 (2011)
Issue (Month): 9 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/|
Web page: https://aib.msu.edu/
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/journal/41267/PS2|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:jintbs:v:42:y:2011:i:9:p:1073-1078. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.